exit_market

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by detailing pre-checks and cost (~50,000 energy + ~280 bandwidth). No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (one sentence plus bullet list) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence provides necessary information without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's two parameters and no output schema, the description covers pre-conditions and cost sufficiently. It could mention reversibility or outcome, but is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic details beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (disable as collateral) and resource (jToken market). It distinguishes from the sibling 'enter_market' (the opposite operation). The pre-checks further clarify the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The pre-checks provide explicit conditions when the tool can be used (no borrows, sufficient remaining collateral). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like 'withdraw' or 'enter_market'. The conditions are clear but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.